About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 J. Int'l Disp. Settlement 1 (2013)

handle is hein.journals/jloildte4 and id is 1 raw text is: Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2013), pp. 1-3 doi:10.1093/jnlids/idt001 Published Advance Access January 29, 2013 EDITORIAL Three Years Old JIDS is three years old. By and large, it has learned to walk, to socialize and it knows how it likes to do things. We had launched JIDS on the gamble that international dispute settlement would grow as an academic field, in two ways. First, we were projecting that international dispute settlement would become more academic, as a field. Second, we were hoping that the field, as a whole, would become larger, that it would actually become a field. The idea was that JIDS would feed on that growth. Did the gamble pay off? Is self-congratulation apposite yet? I don't know. There's so much more that remains to be done. But what is quite clear is how we now do things and whom we must thank after three years. I want to talk of both here. The academic gamble at the origin of JIDS led to a few ways in which the journal is run. The most important of them is that we submit almost everything we get to peer reviewing. There are only two exceptions to the peer-reviewing principle: pieces that are really not worth reviewing and pieces that we have commissioned. The main reasons for declining pieces without sending them to peer reviewers are that they are beyond the purview of the journal, or unfortunately not good enough, or look too much like straightfor- ward marketing vehicles for practitioners. Commissioned pieces, then, which are increasingly rare, may be specific articles from authors we like very much or on topics we think are particularly important. They may also be the occasional lecture or, increasingly in our short-term projections, debates and replies and rejoinders. The main reason why we systematically peer review submitted articles is, of course, quality (beyond the fact that this is a contractual agreement with OUP). It would be hubristic, or outright foolish, for anyone to pretend to be sufficiently competent in all areas of international dispute settlement to be in a position to assess the work of specialized colleagues and make recommenda- tions for corrigenda and amendments. Nemesis would murder the journal eventually. Then there's also a reason that is more simply human. It applies more specifically to me, as editor-in-chief, as I take the final decision to publish or not. That reason is power control, or democracy if you will. I wouldn't trust myself in the long run with the power to decide, as a deus ex machina of sorts, just based on my own opinion. I wouldn't trust myself not to eventually abuse that power. Admittedly it may not be much power. Then again, it seems that © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions&9oup.com

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most